What women (don't) want.

[eFestivals]

you don't see men having to discuss whether they're too sexy for their clothes, though, do you? (except in tongue in cheek songs?)

because, for whatever reasons, men have a culture of more conservative dress (particularly in the sorts of formal worlds that have dress codes).

And, what's the solution when biology is driving women to flash it and men to desire it, but more particularly aimed to work on around just particular ages when the room is full of all ages?

I struggled to think of an example when I tried to compare, couldn't think of actual clothes, so settled for hair.

Now, if men weren't allowed to wear their hair long, and women could, that would be a gender issue for me. genuinely, because although I joke about it, hair is an identity thing with me.

well, that's exactly how it was less than 30 years ago. It's much better now, but still not in all places.

[frostypaw]

Been trying not to post in here but screw it

 

you don't see men having to discuss whether they're too sexy for their clothes, though, do you? (except in tongue in cheek songs?)

Actually you kinda do - vests/topless isn't cool in many places and tight muscle vests wouldn't go down well in most offices.

But for men that's unusual wear - culture has taught boys and men that they're meant to look smart, formal and businesslike so you don't get many pushing the limits.

For women that's just the start of the multi-billion £ industry of clothing. They are taught pretty much from the day they open their eyes that being a woman is about being a sex object teasing guys and fluttering eyelashes wearing wonderful clothes (it's US stats but to compare market sizes here) - and it (sad to admit) works for a lot of them so it gets 'taught' from quite young.

As such women go smashing into the limits lots more than men do. Hence they end up with more comments, more rules.

For an example of the reverse occurring the snazzy very-hip design studio I worked at had dress code rules that barely mentioned men until we gained a new sporty chap who took the piss and came in in his gym kit and sports stuff all the time. Suddenly roles were reversed and it was women asking for dress code rules for men because they said other women were being distracted, and then accusations of sexualisation and all sorts started.

The WHOLE perception of this is vastly skewed by 'societal norms' which are already very lopsided and far from normalised.

I struggled to think of an example when I tried to compare, couldn't think of actual clothes, so settled for hair.

Now, if men weren't allowed to wear their hair long, and women could, that would be a gender issue for me. genuinely, because although I joke about it, hair is an identity thing with me.

Hair is just hair - this programming of women into believing their external appearance defines their identity is a root cause of problems, but also a lot of profit so someone is liking it.

All the schools I went to (and the one i work for) have had rules on boy's haircuts - nothing to go longer than the top of your collar. I know cos I was smashing up against that limit. The girls get to have it as long as they want. No arguments about equality worked, I got a haircut and was still the same person afterwards, plus maybe a bit of understanding that my hair didn't make me.

This isn't meant to sound anti-female concerns but there's a lack of level playing field to start with, and a massive lack of perception of that. Discussions over how short a skirt could be are farcical when the choice for boys is uniform shorts or uniform trousers all of the same length. Just go to any formal event and look how regularised male dress is compared to female dress - then rejoice that tie+shirt+suit isn't the only 'respectable' clothing option for you.

The final nail in the coffin of any uniform arguments for me is provided by all girl's boarding schools - take the boys out of the equation and suddenly most of these issues evaporate. And this is very funny if you know folk who did as it's pretty much exactly right though it skips all the gross bits.

[feral chile]

Been trying not to post in here but screw it

 

Actually you kinda do - vests/topless isn't cool in many places and tight muscle vests wouldn't go down well in most offices.

But for men that's unusual wear - culture has taught boys and men that they're meant to look smart, formal and businesslike so you don't get many pushing the limits.

For women that's just the start of the multi-billion £ industry of clothing. They are taught pretty much from the day they open their eyes that being a woman is about being a sex object teasing guys and fluttering eyelashes wearing wonderful clothes (it's US stats but to compare market sizes here) - and it (sad to admit) works for a lot of them so it gets 'taught' from quite young.

As such women go smashing into the limits lots more than men do. Hence they end up with more comments, more rules.

For an example of the reverse occurring the snazzy very-hip design studio I worked at had dress code rules that barely mentioned men until we gained a new sporty chap who took the piss and came in in his gym kit and sports stuff all the time. Suddenly roles were reversed and it was women asking for dress code rules for men because they said other women were being distracted, and then accusations of sexualisation and all sorts started.

The WHOLE perception of this is vastly skewed by 'societal norms' which are already very lopsided and far from normalised.

Hair is just hair - this programming of women into believing their external appearance defines their identity is a root cause of problems, but also a lot of profit so someone is liking it.

All the schools I went to (and the one i work for) have had rules on boy's haircuts - nothing to go longer than the top of your collar. I know cos I was smashing up against that limit. The girls get to have it as long as they want. No arguments about equality worked, I got a haircut and was still the same person afterwards, plus maybe a bit of understanding that my hair didn't make me.

This isn't meant to sound anti-female concerns but there's a lack of level playing field to start with, and a massive lack of perception of that. Discussions over how short a skirt could be are farcical when the choice for boys is uniform shorts or uniform trousers all of the same length. Just go to any formal event and look how regularised male dress is compared to female dress - then rejoice that tie+shirt+suit isn't the only 'respectable' clothing option for you.

The final nail in the coffin of any uniform arguments for me is provided by all girl's boarding schools - take the boys out of the equation and suddenly most of these issues evaporate. And this is very funny if you know folk who did as it's pretty much exactly right though it skips all the gross bits.

haven't looked at your links yet, thanks for giving a different perspective. I hadn't really thought about how few clothing options you'd have.

boys never had such a problem when I was still in school - I don't know how old you are - I think there'd have been a real issue if they'd tried to force boys to have short cuts, plus there was a local skinhead gang, with a rival greaser gang, so it wouldn't have been a sensible option. I don't think the school wanted to be seen taking sides with a violent, much feared gang. Boys had the same rules as girls, hair had to be tied back if it was long enough to get caught up in anything.

My children's school didn't enforce a hair policy, my son had very long hair, he didn't even have to have it tied back, and I've seen Goths and punks walking around school, albeit in correct school uniform.

perhaps part of the problem, is that women in a corporate setting is relatively recent. talking about school days, I do remember the French teacher getting involved in a lot of conflict with the school because her skirts were too short.

Edited September 3, 2015 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

Been trying not to post in here but screw it

 

Actually you kinda do - vests/topless isn't cool in many places and tight muscle vests wouldn't go down well in most offices.

But for men that's unusual wear - culture has taught boys and men that they're meant to look smart, formal and businesslike so you don't get many pushing the limits.

For women that's just the start of the multi-billion £ industry of clothing. They are taught pretty much from the day they open their eyes that being a woman is about being a sex object teasing guys and fluttering eyelashes wearing wonderful clothes (it's US stats but to compare market sizes here) - and it (sad to admit) works for a lot of them so it gets 'taught' from quite young.

As such women go smashing into the limits lots more than men do. Hence they end up with more comments, more rules.

For an example of the reverse occurring the snazzy very-hip design studio I worked at had dress code rules that barely mentioned men until we gained a new sporty chap who took the piss and came in in his gym kit and sports stuff all the time. Suddenly roles were reversed and it was women asking for dress code rules for men because they said other women were being distracted, and then accusations of sexualisation and all sorts started.

The WHOLE perception of this is vastly skewed by 'societal norms' which are already very lopsided and far from normalised.

Hair is just hair - this programming of women into believing their external appearance defines their identity is a root cause of problems, but also a lot of profit so someone is liking it.

All the schools I went to (and the one i work for) have had rules on boy's haircuts - nothing to go longer than the top of your collar. I know cos I was smashing up against that limit. The girls get to have it as long as they want. No arguments about equality worked, I got a haircut and was still the same person afterwards, plus maybe a bit of understanding that my hair didn't make me.

This isn't meant to sound anti-female concerns but there's a lack of level playing field to start with, and a massive lack of perception of that. Discussions over how short a skirt could be are farcical when the choice for boys is uniform shorts or uniform trousers all of the same length. Just go to any formal event and look how regularised male dress is compared to female dress - then rejoice that tie+shirt+suit isn't the only 'respectable' clothing option for you.

The final nail in the coffin of any uniform arguments for me is provided by all girl's boarding schools - take the boys out of the equation and suddenly most of these issues evaporate. And this is very funny if you know folk who did as it's pretty much exactly right though it skips all the gross bits.

 

fantastic post, frosty.

 

Some people seem to think it's a one-sided argument. You;'ve done a far better job than me of demonstrating that it's not.

[feral chile]

fantastic post, frosty.

 

Some people seem to think it's a one-sided argument. You;'ve done a far better job than me of demonstrating that it's not.

'some people' is passive aggressive. if you want to direct your comments at someone, then do that, not by directing them obliquely in this way.

you will notice that an alternative can be given without invalidating another person's opinion.

You will also notice, that you are the only one calling people out for stupidity and making vague accusations, instead of providing actual content that can be considered.

if you think someone's talking rubbish, you need to explain why, not just slag them off. And I'm confused, because last time, you slagged me off for defending Page 3 girls, and this time, you're slagging me off for defending female pupils/staff, or at least bringing this to debate, when both are feminist issues.

And you also accused me of being anti-men and anti-feminist.

And also, when I made points such as it's not all one-sided, women had some things better, sometimes men were the ones who were disadvantaged an eg more freedom with clothes, as referenced here, you accused me of denying patriarchy, and being all over the place (as you phrased it) as it was all male defined anyway. yet, when someone else says similar, you applaud it and agree that it's NOT a one-sided argument.

it makes you seem confused and inconsistent. I have no idea what you actually think any more, it feels like you want to argue and disagree with me for the sake of it, because you've made up your mind that I'm wrong, and it's knee-jerk with you now.

Edited September 3, 2015 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

'some people' is passive aggressive. if you want to direct your comments at someone, then do that, not by directing them obliquely in this way.

you will notice that an alternative can be given without invalidating another person's opinion.

 

do you think you're the only person 'smart' enough to think as you do, feral?

 

And an alternative cannot be other than lessening the validity of view it's disputing.

 

FFS.

[feral chile]

do you think you're the only person 'smart' enough to think as you do, feral?

 

And an alternative cannot be other than lessening the validity of view it's disputing.

 

FFS.

The points you raise should further the debate, as it should lead to things that add to the debate, give other people involved in the discussion things to consider, very valuable if it's an alternative they hadn't previously considered.

when you do this, you're very good at it, but resorting to frustration and mockery doesn't further your case.

You need to focus on invalidating the argument, not the person making it.

Edited September 3, 2015 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

The points you raise should further the debate

it can only further the debate if the debate is open to being furthered.

Mostly, people are already fixed in their ideas. You certainly are around this one, even to the point of trying to push out all effects of humanity from the debate.

[eFestivals]

You need to focus on invalidating the argument, not the person making it.

I've done that already. You clearly weren't listening.

[feral chile]

it can only further the debate if the debate is open to being furthered.

Mostly, people are already fixed in their ideas. You certainly are around this one, even to the point of trying to push out all effects of humanity from the debate.

I'm not, you know. I'm personally in favour of dress codes, I am interested in the reasons people give for them.

on a personal level, I was interested in frostypaw's point that hair is external, as it feels much more than that to me, as stated, it's part of my identity.

I disagree that that's necessarily particular to females, however, as there are many male 'hair' people' who understand where I'm coming from. particularly ageing rock fans, which is mainly what I'm thinking of.

it's similar to political affiliation, a shared liking for a particular band, team etc.

But I've come to that conclusion after taking on board frostypaw's points, thinking about whether I agree what hair is, and whether I think my view is shaped by my gendered experiences.

it is true that it's difficult to change an opinion once it's formed, though, I'll give you that. But people can understand why others disagree with them, and that's not by assuming the other person is too stupid to see what you see (which is what you keep accusing people of, and would only be suspected if you persist in reducing your argument to personal abuse).

Contrary to what you think of me, I'm actually interested in what people think, and why, but I have more trouble with your opinions than most, because you seem to agree with others and not me, when I agree with their points too.

So I find that confusing. I never even get as far as deciding whether I agree with you or not, because usually all you put across to me is that you disagree with me, and don't really explain why you disagree with me but not others, and why you support a POV someone else states, that you called me out for when I stated it (as mentioned above).

[feral chile]

it's all the men's fault when women cannot stick to the rules...?

 

Dress codes are a common thing in society, for both males and females. While I think dress codes are a ridiculous thing, it's only that person's fault if they step over the line and is pulled-up for it.

see, this is the first response you made.

now, I got confused during the patriarchy debate, because you kept saying everything was male defined, so I'd expect you to think that these are men's rules, patriarchy's rules, therefore. I haven't even got as far as working out the parts of what you say I agree/disagree with, because I haven't yet worked out the complexities of what you think.

Surely, if you think everything is patriarchal, then women can't change this? Do you think women should abide by patriarchy, do you think this is unrelated, what?

Until I get to that, I won't know whether I agree with you or not.

What I would have expected, was you agreeing wholeheartedly with it, as an example of patriarchy in action, and me having reservations, as I think it's more complicated than it first appears.

Edited September 3, 2015 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

I'm not, you know. I'm personally in favour of dress codes, I am interested in the reasons people give for them.

But you won't accept the reasons they give.

Like it or not, there's a lot about sex in our psyche because of biological drivers. An awful lot of what gets played out around how people dress is a part of that.

The explanations for the reasons are about as difficult to vocalise as it is to explain why you love someone, so it's not really surprising that the attempts at doing so often sound muddled or discriminatory or inconsistent. It's not based on the only-logical, and things are further muddled via the differences that genders act out.

[eFestivals]

Surely, if you think everything is patriarchal, then women can't change this?

No, that's your version that you endless repeat and I put forwards facts that prove your take wrong.

I can't be bothered to do it all again when you prefer your fantasies to what I clearly state each time.

Edited September 3, 2015 by eFestivals

[feral chile]

No, that's your version that you endless repeat and I put forwards facts that prove your take wrong.

I can't be bothered to do it all again when you prefer your fantasies to what I clearly state each time.

 

well I always had the feeling that we weren't talking about the same thing when we were arguing about patriarchy, this kind of proves it, because this is exactly the grey area I was trying to explain.

 

I posted LOADS of examples where men were disadvantaged more than women, and you dismissed them all.

 

Are you saying men have all the power but none of the responsibility/accountability?

 

because if they have all the power, as you insisted previously, then yes, they MUST be to blame.

 

But since I don't argue that men hold all the power, I think women share responsibility for getting things changed if they don't like the rules, or think they're unfair.

 

You've stated in the General news thread that the situation there is unacceptable, I agree with you, but how come you're not just shrugging and saying 'rules is rules' over there?

 

genuine question, I just don't get what seems to me a completely inconsistent stance.

Edited September 3, 2015 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

You actually believe that?

That is true if you're 100% sure of everything you say.

Which, to me, is a weird thing to admit. It does say a lot about why you discuss/debate the way you do.

if you're suggesting an alternative, it is by default suggesting that the first thing on offer is able to be bettered - which says that first idea is not the best, which is precisely why you;re undermining via an alternative.

If you ask a question about an alternative, that's a different thing.

Did you do English at school tony?

About what you've said here and my reply, yes I'm sure. I'm sure your brain is so very tiny that it causes you to come out with these things.

 

Particularly if you can impress your girlfriend by humping to her defence. Is that something women want, tony? You patronising them?

 

[eFestivals]

and it's only open if both sides are open to the possibility that there could be a change of perception. If there is only one right (which is usually your take), and everything else is wrong, then there is no openness

 

I'm open to new ideas tony.

 

I'm not open to taking up ideas that have already been put forwards and shown as limited in their considerations and so flawed with conclusions as a direct result.

 

If feral ever gets up to speed she might have something worth hearing.

[eFestivals]

well I always had the feeling that we weren't talking about the same thing when we were arguing about patriarchy, this kind of proves it, because this is exactly the grey area I was trying to explain.

 

I posted LOADS of examples where men were disadvantaged more than women, and you dismissed them all.

 

Are you saying men have all the power but none of the responsibility/accountability?

 

because if they have all the power, as you insisted previously, then yes, they MUST be to blame.

 

But since I don't argue that men hold all the power, I think women share responsibility for getting things changed if they don't like the rules, or think they're unfair.

 

You've stated in the General news thread that the situation there is unacceptable, I agree with you, but how come you're not just shrugging and saying 'rules is rules' over there?

 

genuine question, I just don't get what seems to me a completely inconsistent stance.

 

all the same bollocks, demonstrating how deaf and consequently thought free you are.

 

If you were able to listen you'd have heard me state plenty of times before that i don't believe men hold all the power.

 

If the world was as you like to fantasise I have a button for dealing with it, and yet you're still here.

Edited September 3, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

That's just too weird, but quite funny

 

Feral (that's who you're referring too, isn't it?) doesn't need me to defend her. I'm referring to you how you 'talk' to me.

i talk to you like I do a small deliberately obtuse child tony. There's a reason why.

[eFestivals]

it makes you look and feel superior

 

I got that

It's just about how I feel up against your tiny mind tony.

Me, I don't care for appearances. If I'm looking superior to you, that's because you think that I am superior.

[eFestivals]

Well, I'm just happy to not be as all knowing as you. I enjoy discussing things with people like feral.

 

We can, and do, disagree on things, yet treat each other with a level of respect.

mostly you don't even discuss. You ask vapid questions as though having your own thoughts is too testing for you.

[feral chile]

mostly you don't even discuss. You ask vapid questions as though having your own thoughts is too testing for you.

 

make up your mind. You don't like women having their own thoughts, do you, unless they're conceding that men are more powerful?

 

all the same bollocks, demonstrating how deaf and consequently thought free you are.

 

If you were able to listen you'd have heard me state plenty of times before that i don't believe men hold all the power.

 

If the world was as you like to fantasise I have a button for dealing with it, and yet you're still here.

 

No, the difference is, patriarchy to you means men on top. and women who won't accept that are stupid. Women complaining that rules are male biased but who try to change things are wrong, because 'rules is rules'.

 

So, according to you, women should learn their place, as socially inferior to men.

 

I do get what you're about, Neil. More than you realise.

Edited September 3, 2015 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

make up your mind. You don't like women having their own thoughts, do you, unless they're conceding that men are more powerful?

there's nothing that won't make you go off half-cocked, is there?

Unless I've been wrongly under the impression that tony is male all these years...?

 

No, the difference is, patriarchy to you means men on top. and women who won't accept that are stupid. Women complaining that rules are male biased but who try to change things are wrong, because 'rules is rules'.

or alternatively, the whole world's reality is just yours to invent as you see fit, no evidence required.

You just can't help yourself, can you

 

So, according to you, women should learn their place, as socially inferior to men.

 

I do get what you're about, Neil. More than you realise.

No, according to me, the stupid - male or female - should sometime, hopefully, wise up to just how stupid they're being.

No matter what I say, you have a fantasy version of what i've never even hinted at.

Edited September 3, 2015 by eFestivals

[feral chile]

there's nothing that won't make you go off half-cocked, is there?

Unless I've been wrongly under the impression that tony is male all these years...?

 

or alternatively, the whole world's reality is just yours to invent as you see fit, no evidence required.

You just can't help yourself, can you

 

No, according to me, the stupid - male or female - should sometime, hopefully, wise up to just how stupid they're being.

No matter what I say, you have a fantasy version of what i've never even hinted at.

 

You can bluster all you like. You're accusing tony of not being opinionated, you're accusing me of being opinionated.

 

I'm well aware of the gender difference, and the way you'd prefer each of us to be.

 

I don't know how self aware you are.. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume not very.

Edited September 3, 2015 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

You can bluster all you like. You're accusing tony of not being opinionated, you're accusing me of being opinionated.

I'm accusing you of talking complete and utter rubbish, things you've made up that have never happened.  

Have you ever stopped to think that it might not be anything to do with you holding an opinion, and instead might be about something else?

I'm well aware of the gender difference, and the way you'd prefer each of us to be.

and just to prove the point, you prove the point.

 

I don't know how self aware you are.. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume not very.

Priceless. Utterly utterly priceless.

It takes some sort of special awareness to see stuff that "according to you" exists of what I've said.

Are you aware enough of me saying it that you can show me it?

[feral chile]

I'm accusing you of talking complete and utter rubbish, things you've made up that have never happened.  

Have you ever stopped to think that it might not be anything to do with you holding an opinion, and instead might be about something else?

and just to prove the point, you prove the point.

 

Priceless. Utterly utterly priceless.

It takes some sort of special awareness to see stuff that "according to you" exists of what I've said.

Are you aware enough of me saying it that you can show me it?

 

yes, you often accuse people of telling lies, and making stuff up.

 

or did I just make up you saying that too?

 

Ok, you set the record straight then.

 

Do you now believe everything is male defined?

 

Do you still believe in patriarchy?

 

Do you believe that anything can escape patriarchy?

 

How do you propose patriarchy, if you still believe in it, can be eliminated?

 

Do you think that refusal to challenge existing male definitions will perpetuate patriarchy?

 

Do you think that's the best option, or would you like to see change?

 

Do you believe that women have a right to speak out against rules they perceive to be unfair?

 

Do you think that they should have a say in how they feel the rules have treated them unfairly?

 

Or is it a case of (male defined) rules is (male defined) rules?

 

(And lets ust see if you can actually engage in discussion without resrting to accusations of dishonesty, stupidity etc.)

Edited September 3, 2015 by feral chile